Mankind will have whatever we need to survive as long as the earth is here in it's present form........That's been promised to us in the Bible..........Keeping that in mind, know that mankind will not be who destroys this earth...........That, too, is Biblical.........

What is getting worse is the number of people with immoral behavior...........And, technology is one of the temptations which is contributing.........Mankind without the one-and only real moral authority will not resist the temptations which are gaining in number.........People are being fooled into worshiping immorality..........And, that is gonna be the downfall of mankind on this earth............None of our necessities will be extinguished.........All Biblical...........

If "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", then the inverse is true: A religion shall not form a government. #SeperationOfChurchAndState #GoogleItKidsIslam is a system of laws that it seeks to impose upon non believers. It is a hostile military force. Islam shd in no way enjoy protection as a "religion" under the 1A.

In 350 years we've burned through a half a billion years of stored sunlight (coal, oil, natural gas) that was easy to extract. Our planet's fossil fuel reserves won't come back on any time scale that matters to human beings. Now we are working our way through the stuff that's more difficult to get, even with our latest energy-intensive extraction technologies. That will run its course shortly. Perhaps 50 years.

The world's first fossil-fueled human civilization is guaranteed to be its last.

I've been reading Ken Follett's latest book, A Column of Fire. In many ways, especially food, transportation, and energy, our civilization will be reverting to the way of life of the 1500's, with a mix of sustainable technologies from the 1800's and 1900's. Nothing 'invented' or 'created' from the 2000's will be useful in the years to come.__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

Originally Posted by EarlyGrayceIn 350 years we've burned through a half a billion years of stored sunlight (coal, oil, natural gas) that was easy to extract. Our planet's fossil fuel reserves won't come back on any time scale that matters to human beings. Now we are working our way through the stuff that's more difficult to get, even with our latest energy-intensive extraction technologies. That will run its course shortly. Perhaps 50 years.

The world's first fossil-fueled human civilization is guaranteed to be its last.

I've been reading Ken Follett's latest book, A Column of Fire. In many ways, especially food, transportation, and energy, our civilization will be reverting to the way of life of the 1500's, with a mix of sustainable technologies from the 1800's and 1900's. Nothing 'invented' or 'created' from the 2000's will be useful in the years to come.

Drink.__________________Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey. He used to criticize people who did that.

Running an Empire like ours takes tremendous wealth. After depleting their own resources, Empires have always created offshore wealth pumps to continue the flow of resources, goods, and labor to the Empire to support it's relentless 'growth'. Of course, these wealth pumps always draw down the foreign resources until they no longer can supply the needed wealth. Then the Empire abandons that source and looks for new ones. Here's an interesting tidbit regarding our American Empire's global reach in search of wealth pumps.

"The United States military gets around. There are the countries with which it’s gone to war – Iraq, Germany, and Japan. There are countries it helps protect – Turkey, Poland, and Bahrain. And there are countries most people don’t even know that America sends troops to, like Thailand, Pakistan, and Antarctica.

There are so many countries. Roughly 195.

There are only three countries in the world America hasn’t invaded or have never seen a U.S. military presence: Andorra, Bhutan, and Liechtenstein."

__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

US population is 1988 was 244 million people. 30 years later, in 2018 the US population will be roughly 327 million people. Including stats on births, deaths, and immigrants, we have a net gain of a new person every 15 seconds.We may be at 400 million people in the US when our kids are our age. The true costs of supporting a population of 400 million on our land base are totally unsustainable. The answer to this disaster isn't murdering babies. The answer is to stop irresponsible mating. Allowing people to breed like we do now is unsustainable. We need to promote adoption. The resident libs will be outraged by this proposal, and no doubt claim it's racist. As is usual with them, they will also have no realistic counter proposal, other than to keep murdering babies, and call it 'choice'. Libs are like precocious children; lots of emotional outbursts and tantrums, but not too grounded in the true costs and realities of their desires.__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

Originally Posted by EarlyGrayceUS population is 1988 was 244 million people. 30 years later, in 2018 the US population will be roughly 327 million people. Including stats on births, deaths, and immigrants, we have a net gain of a new person every 15 seconds.We may be at 400 million people in the US when our kids are our age. The true costs of supporting a population of 400 million on our land base are totally unsustainable. The answer to this disaster isn't murdering babies. The answer is to stop irresponsible mating. Allowing people to breed like we do now is unsustainable. We need to promote adoption. The resident libs will be outraged by this proposal, and no doubt claim it's racist. As is usual with them, they will also have no realistic counter proposal, other than to keep murdering babies, and call it 'choice'. Libs are like precocious children; lots of emotional outbursts and tantrums, but not too grounded in the true costs and realities of their desires.

Agree. Adoption was a way more responsible answer to the solution.

In 1998 some friends adopted a black baby, raised her to be a great kid. That was their first baby. Then they had 2 of there own. They always had at least one foster child.

8 years after the first adoption, they had a foster child and wanted to adopt. Was another black child. Whelp low and behold. libtard duhvernment decided that having white middle-lower class families adopt black babies was racial misappropriation or some sh1t. That the black baby should be raised black. That baby was actually whie mom and black dad, so only half black. There were no black families wanting a baby at the time. So the kicked that poor baby back into the foster system.

That baby ended back at their house. This cycle repeated about every 2 years. Family Services would make noise in a review that the baby had been in their house for too long and was becoming attached. They would make noise about moving the baby. Family would try to adopt. Loads of lawyers, loads of money spent. Family Services would take the baby away, put it in a group home. The family would reapply for foster care, get that same baby back. 16 years of that. When the baby got to be 16 years old, the family finally was able to adopt the baby. Family Services realized that baby was old enough to make it's own choice. Little girl never knew anything but those people as her parents.

Total agenda narrative wreck of a mess. Very sad to watch it all.

__________________Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car. "

In 1998 some friends adopted a black baby, raised her to be a great kid. That was their first baby. Then they had 2 of there own. They always had at least one foster child.

8 years after the first adoption, they had a foster child and wanted to adopt. Was another black child. Whelp low and behold. libtard duhvernment decided that having white middle-lower class families adopt black babies was racial misappropriation or some sh1t. That the black baby should be raised black. That baby was actually whie mom and black dad, so only half black. There were no black families wanting a baby at the time. So the kicked that poor baby back into the foster system.

That baby ended back at their house. This cycle repeated about every 2 years. Family Services would make noise in a review that the baby had been in their house for too long and was becoming attached. They would make noise about moving the baby. Family would try to adopt. Loads of lawyers, loads of money spent. Family Services would take the baby away, put it in a group home. The family would reapply for foster care, get that same baby back. 16 years of that. When the baby got to be 16 years old, the family finally was able to adopt the baby. Family Services realized that baby was old enough to make it's own choice. Little girl never knew anything but those people as her parents.

Total agenda narrative wreck of a mess. Very sad to watch it all.

That's what happens when you have a bunch of dewys and freshies involved in 'feel-good' government, wedge issues__________________"Getting your motor revved about taking our guns is going to be what undoes your efforts."

"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me"

__________________If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King

“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” ― Winston S. Churchill

Originally Posted by bluedogThe earth is 4,000 - 6,000 years old.........

Mankind will have whatever we need to survive as long as the earth is here in it's present form........That's been promised to us in the Bible..........Keeping that in mind, know that mankind will not be who destroys this earth...........That, too, is Biblical.........

What is getting worse is the number of people with immoral behavior...........And, technology is one of the temptations which is contributing.........Mankind without the one-and only real moral authority will not resist the temptations which are gaining in number.........People are being fooled into worshiping immorality..........And, that is gonna be the downfall of mankind on this earth............None of our necessities will be extinguished.........All Biblical...........

This earth is 4-6000k years old. This earth has been in an ebb and flow of creation and destruction for eons under the design of our creator long before our happy asses were created. People act like they are something unique and somehow have some great value. Under only limited circumstances do they offer anything of value to God. Yes he loves us, yes he wishes the best from us, and wishes for our salvation, but more often than not we fail, and are just failed creatures breathing oxygen. We are future biomass. It is a very narrow path, and even with an earnest request in the name of the savior, most will fall short of the glory that God offers. We are weak pathetic creatures unable to turn away from our selfishness, and simply ask in all humility forgiveness of our sins in the name of Christ. I ask for forgiveness everyday, but fear that even though I really mean it, that it is just a hollow vessel I use to offer myself some semblance of reassurance that I might live after death. I fear we are all not going to fare well at the white throne judgement.__________________Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist.

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.

Whether you like his politics or not, Steve Bannon is a very smart dude. He sees an Empire in Decline. He is exactly right to recognize the undeniable parallels.

"The Romans, Bannon gleans from Gibbon, “[Are] the people most like us. … They built this great empire and how it all slipped away over time.

Bannon sees striking parallels in present-day America. Key to Gibbon’s depiction are the steady corrosion of the core virtues, and, while the term was still centuries from being coined, “social capital” of the Roman Empire by mass uncontrolled immigration, decadence among the elite, and the loss of cohesion around societal institutions with the rise of what Arnold Toynbee would describe – 140 years later – as the Empire’s “internal proletariat” of early Christianity.

The civic virtue of “melting pot”-era America, was enough to assimilate controlled immigration – the first waves of barbarians to the Roman citizenship 212 A.D.’s Edict of Caracalla granted them. But those barbarians came, in Gibbon’s view and Bannon’s, to overwhelm the capacity of the society to subsume them, like the unchecked mass of often-illegal third world immigration threatens to do to America today. And that “overrunning” of the Empire’s values at its frontiers was matched by the abandonment of them at its heart, among its elites.

The Roman Senate “was bought and paid for by the elites. … The exact thing we face today!” he exclaimed. “What the Roman Empire faced is exactly what we face, that you lose the citizenship — and the power of citizenship — of the Roman Republic, you become an Empire, and that empire becomes a massive concentration of power and wealth, which is detached from the people. And then eventually, you’re having people who don’t want to serve in the legions, you have to go for foreign soldiers. Everybody is a mercenary. And therefore, no one really stood up or was prepared to die, really, in service to the country. And then what happened? Wave, after wave, after wave of migrations from the Goths, the Visigoths, the Huns. Coming into the empire and changing the culture and destroying the civic society they had in Rome. The empire could not withstand it.”

__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

One of the most dangerous results of techno-industrialization is that human consciousness is disengaging from our evolutionary biological roots.

Examples: We now 'process' information; when d1ckheads like fresh are babbling their nonsense, we say they are 'taking up too much bandwidth'; we go on vacation to get some 'down time'.

Not long ago, barnyard metaphors made sense to our human consciousness: foxes guarding the henhouse, chickens coming home to roost, grown children leaving the nest.

I would posit that this shift is bad; it makes it easy to marginalize and dismiss concerns about the global environmental degradation, it disconnects us from our fellow humans, it is a symptom of the decline of Empire.

__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

Over the past two hundred years, we grew accustomed to a cycle where there was more energy available each year, and global population has skyrocketed. We created a false economic system built on the assumption that growth is normal and necessary. Most important, and most damaging, is the false belief that this can go on forever.Trying to reset your mental 'energy frame of reference' is difficult. Other failed empire's are written off as inferior to ours. Truth is, ours has been totally and artificially propped up by burning through half a billion years worth of stored energy in 400 years.__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

"If we continue...to consume the world until there's no more to consume, then there's going to come a day, sure as hell, when our children or their children or their children's children are going to look back on us---on you and me---and say to themselves, "My God, what kind of monsters were these people?"__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

BS. We will be the people that created their new energy sources, cured diseases, and gave them technological advances to better their lives. Why do you want to live in a shire, crap in an outhouse, commute with a horse, and die of preventable diseases? You are really out there. __________________Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist.

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.

I hear you bud, sorry if I am aggravating you on this. To be clear, what I am talking about has nothing to do with what I "want". I'm hoping that I will get some replies that specifically explain why what I suspect will be our Empire's arc, actually won't be. Anyway, at least I hope we can agree that it is well past time for real concrete proposals of new energy sources that stand up to scrutiny. I welcome any dissenting data and facts, theories and opinions.__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

How much NG is in the GOM, and Texas alone? It's a burn off product. How many years do you think a combination of NG, Hydro, (if you could get enviro crazies on board), could generate power? The storage of energy is the next frontier. We have the ability to harvest, just not store. Go nuclear, and generate all the power you want. We have the means to produce energy without fossil fuels, it's just not economically viable at this point in history. When we run out of NG, and oil, then the market will drive the innovation such as algae for bio diesel, methane from landfills. It's going to be OK. We will continue to be a thriving society of great innovators, as long as we have borders, and are not overrun by people from third world countries consuming our economy, and being a drain on our tax base, and social services. We got this. We are Americans and are really good at this sh!t.__________________Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist.

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.

I like drinking bourbon and watching you two go deep, down field. So much substance and that is a sure way to keep BAMATURD away__________________"Getting your motor revved about taking our guns is going to be what undoes your efforts."

"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me"

Natural Gas---Would appear to be the ideal replacement for oil. burns cleaner, cars can run on it, versatile, EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) is high.We've been using it to create nitrogen fertilizers for Con Agra for quite a while. I think the US currently uses NG for about 25% of our energy consumption, with 17% of that going to electricity.From 1977-87, 9,000 new gas fields discovered. 1987-97, only 2,500 new fields. Rough estimates of global NG left is around 1,100 trillion cubic feet. This estimate includes the belief that rate of extraction will remain where it is, which seems unlikely. 1,100 tcf is enough for about 80 years at current usage rates.Then NG will be over.

Nuclear---produces about 20% of our electricity energy. When the true costs of nuclear power are taken into account, (plant construction/decommissioning, waste storage, uranium mining), the EROEI is low. Most crucial, there will never be a feasible way to use nuclear power for our current transportation modes.

Hydro/Wind/BioMass/Solar---Storage issues, never able to be used for transportation modes, undependable, but all of these would be an excellent development area, and we should be directing our dwindling fossil fuels towards these renewables.

__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

Capacitor banks and underground bunkers of whatever form of batteries/storage devices are in our future. I am not an EE, but it would seem much more feasible to have large vaults of liquids capable of being repeatedly charged and discharged, than glass mat, or gel cell batteries.__________________Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist.

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.

Agreed we are innovators and we overcome. We need a National frame-of-mind shift away from acting like fossil fuels will be ever-flowing. They simply won't be, they are finite, and we are on the downhill side of peak.We need to direct the remaining fossil fuels to doing just what you are talking about, coming up with renewable energy sources (Wind/Hydro/Wave/Solar) that we can utilize to keep the lights on nation-wide. We need storage issues solved, distribution issues solved, and to keep the remaining fossil fuels 'nationalized' to be used for the infrastructure of power distribution for homes and small businesses.Transportation as we currently know it (individual powered transportation vehicles) is doomed. None of our renewables will allow our current car/plane modes to remain.__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

BS. We aren't going to "nationalize" anything. This isn't Venezuela. Fossil fuel energy consumption will continue until supplies become economically cost prohibitive. Before then, by the magic of capitalism, R&D expenditures will have already come up with an alternative energy source that is comparative in cost. Real innovation wont happen in Socialist countries, it will become reality in a capitalist based system that monetarily rewards an individual's innovation. We got this. Don't dig your latrine just yet.__________________Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist.

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.

"Magic". That doesn't inspire confidence. Anyway, agreed, we will never nationalize the remaining fossil fuel resource. That would be too forward thinking. 50 years from now, our progeny will remark on how insane and selfish their ancestors must have been to allow a few humans to 'own', extract, and burn off that non-renewable, totally unique, 500 million year old resource in a 400 year orgy of excessive consumption and waste.

I disagree about magic anything. We need market based solutions. Wind and Solar are both very close. We need to get our universities back to enjoying, thriving and delivering on base level physics challenges.

We need them doing base level research work on storage as well.

That low level physics will definitely result in startup companies. They are chomping at the bit. Batteries that can store 5% more based on weight/cost will 100% result in a new start up and be brought to market.

Remember any percent increase in load that solar/wind takes on directly extends our known oil reserves.

Also we are only at the beginning of 2 very important technologies.

First is satellite driven oil exploration. This is super important and has been finding massive deposits of oil and gas.

Second is fracking. Which allows us to extract monumentally more oil and gas from existing fields and open fields thought to never be production grade. While fracking has been around for 30-40 years, we are only just now understanding engineered fluids and what they can accomplish. This is a very young field, and only some minor engineering/physics/chemistry has proven extremely useful.

Have you considered the above points?__________________Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car. "

I used the term magic in irony. The fact is Capitalism, not Socialism, or collectivism will drive the innovation of new storage techniques. As far as university labs creating and testing new technologies, the focus of many universities seems more focused on social justice, political correctness, and the promotion of Socialism and it's required indoctrination than anything taking place in a research lab. When we solve the energy storage problem, then solar will rule. It's just a matter of time and R&D. Wind generation is costly compared to solar as is Hydro.__________________Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist.

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.

I know you were, I was just being a dink. Anyway, seems reasonable, I love Solar. I am concerned that every storage system currently being conceived of requires massive amounts of fossil fuels to build and maintain. Also, solar is not viable as a stand alone for large parts of the world that don't have sufficient direct sunlight. But combo energy sources would work.Agreed that the misdirection of current resources is a major problem and that discussion is one the primary goals of this thread.__________________

Originally Posted by Fresh"Shows the level of dementia in gun owners when you think driving a car is somehow comparable to driving a car."

Insert Photos

Web address (URL)

Image URL

If your URL is correct, you'll see an image preview here. Large images may take a few minutes to appear.
Remember: Using others' images on the web without their permission may be bad manners, or worse, copyright infringement.